I watched the media spin last night and this morning in a state of utter disbelief; conservatives are worried about the woman who stands shyly behind Bush wearing a giant crucifix and has had her nose up Bush's butt for the past ten years?

SUUUUUUUUUUUUURE they are. What a crock! I have called these kinds of stunts before, and that is what this is, a stunt to try to ease her through confirmation. This woman is a fanatical Christian conservative who worships the ground Bush walks on and will fulfill his agenda with her every breath, and "conservatives are worried"? Puh-lease, kids, give me a break!

Miers went on record favoring equal civil rights for gays when she ran for Dallas City Council, and said the city had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services.

But Miers opposed repeal of the Texas sodomy statute â€” a law later overturned by the court on which she will sit if confirmed â€” in a survey she filled out for a gay-rights group during her successful 1989 campaign.

So it seems Miers' "equal rights" stance for gays means that gays and straights can equally endure government policing of the bedroom. Honey, watch your aim now. Harriet's watching us from the closet.

Uh-oh. Now we are in trouble. Doesn't take much to read the tea leaves on the Harriet Miers nomination. First, it's Bunker Time at the White House. Miers' chief qualification for this job is loyalty to George W. Bush and the team. What the nomination means in larger terms for both law and society is the fifth vote on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Aside from that bothersome little matter, the Miers appointment is like that of John Roberts -- could've been worse. Not as bad as Edith Jones, not as bad as Priscilla Owen -- and you should see some of our boy judges from Texas.

Miers, like Bush himself, is classic Texas conservative Establishment, with the addition of Christian fundamentalism. What I mean by fundamentalist is one who believes in both biblical inerrancy and salvation by faith alone.

And as to all the crowing that Ms. Miers is pro-gay rights:

She ran for city council in 1989 as a moderate, but struggled during her interview with the lesbian/gay coalition. (At the time, it would have been considered progressive to even show up.) The Dallas Police Department did not then hire gays or lesbians, and when asked about the policy, Miers replied the department should hire the best-qualified people, the classic political sidestep answer.

When pressed, she said she did believe one should be able to legally discriminate against gays, and it is the recollection of two of the organization's officers that the response involved her religious beliefs.

As for those who seem not very concerned about Miers evangelical fundamentalist born again attitudes about religion and society, Ms. Ivins notes how "we are now beset by people who insist on dragging religion into governance," adding:

As an 1803 quote attributed to James Madison goes: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."

This seems like a very clear call to consider the Miers nomination with extreme skepticism.

Some good points there, but it is already too late. Ms. Miers will be the fifth vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and she will add to the full quiver of holy arrows on the Supreme Court. Gilead and all that.

Too late? We're on Day 3, and despite the initial votes of praise or concern from various politicos, nobody has declared his or her position yet. We're just getting started. Aren't we?

Miers is part of the dirty political apparatus in Texas, currently being backed by Swift Boat backer Merrie Spaeth. Her observations confirm what I have heard from others - Miers had a born again moment because of personal crisis, and that she is immensely capable at dealing with careerist men who don't have a goal other than their own self-advancement. That is how you get to be on top of a 400 man law firm in any state.

Given that the press wants the reactionary revolution to work out - and this is a constitutional moment whose weight is growing by the day - the very people who promoted slander of Kerry are now going to be portrayed as butter won't melt in their mouths southern ladies. Well, perhaps in a South that has Tammy Faye Baker as something other than the scullery maid they are. I wouldn't know, the Southern Lady I grew up under the watchful eye of would not have had them in her parlor.

While reactionary anger is very real, it is also meaningless - while they know that a golden opportunity to install their revisionist - and frankly dishonest - reading of the constitution and its history - has been passed up in favor of a button from the "Arbusto Crime Family" - there is nothing else they can do. You see, Bush knows he has bought their loyalty with defense pork, revenue reducitons and construction corruption - their feet are litterally poured into concrete, and should the neo-Confederate impulse start to get serious about our modern day President Tyler - prosperity can evaporate very quickly for those that "walk into the propeller."

In short, I don't get why Democrats and progressives don't want to fight this with every bit of energy they showed during the Roberts confirmation hearings. Or, for those who wished to keep the powder dry--isn't this the time to use it? Are Democrats so disappointed that they don't have a clear right-wing ideologue to fight and rally their base with that they will let a crappy candidate wander into the Supreme Court?

Instead of continuing on about her lack of "judicial" experience, opponents should stick to the facts. Like Michael Brown, Harriet Meirs is a crony disaster appointment. Unfortunately for all of us, she's a disaster that would last a lifetime.

Perhaps all this is just a red herring -- a lot of noise that distracts from Miers' very real failings as a nominee. And as one of my very smart readers points out, there aren't any good options on the table right now: "The problem is that we'll probably learn even less about Miers views than we did about Roberts and have to 'trust' Bush or the lack of public ideological zeal that they've demonstrated."

Maybe that's why I still can't seem to find a clear, well-defined position on this one. Or perhaps the Bush administration has set the bar so low that a little voice in my head keeps saying, "Incompetence isn't that bad."

Hecht is known as the most conservative member of the conservative Texas Supreme Court. "He's sort of the [Antonin] Scalia of that court: smart, aggressive and very conservative," said University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock.

Hecht, a vocal opponent of the abortion right, said in an interview Tuesday that Miers shared his views. The two attend the evangelical Valley View Christian Church near Dallas.

"Harriet goes to a church that is pro-life. She has for 25 years," he said. "She gives them a lot of money. Her personal views lie in that direction."

But when asked if her personal opposition to abortion would give her sufficient cause to overturn the Supreme Court's abortion precedent, Hecht said, "I think she'll say they won't."

Miers' thin record has alarmed many conservative activists, who fear she won't be the unwavering voice on the right that they want on the high court. But Hecht's comments on abortion are among several pieces of evidence that have persuaded many other conservatives to support President Bush's Supreme Court nominee.

"I encourage people to connect the dots," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. "Hecht is a pro-life conservative, so we take a lot of comfort from that."

Miers gave $150 to Texans United for Life in 1989 and was a sponsor of their annual dinner that honored Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), a leading congressional opponent of abortion.

Lorlee Bartos, who was Miers' campaign manager in her race for the Dallas City Council in 1989, recalled that she was surprised to learn her candidate was opposed to abortion rights.

"I wanted her to meet with a group of pro-choice women, and she said she wasn't pro-choice," Bartos said. "She said she had been pro-choice but had changed her view."

In his news conference Tuesday, Bush said he did not recall discussing abortion or Roe vs. Wade with his longtime lawyer.

But he added: "I made my position very clear in the course of my campaigns. I'm a pro-life president. And I know her. I know her heart. I know what she believesâ€¦. And she knows exactly the kind of judge I'm looking for."

There's one post in Talk Left's collective opining that I agree with: Harriet Miers is not inherently unqualified simply by her lack of judicial experience. I know of several people -- including someone in my family -- who know the law quite well, are brilliant to the point of genius (such as my dim wits can discern), can write and speak quite eloquently and convincingly about it, and yet have no judicial experience.

The White House's thinking is pretty simple: Democrats have now publicly said that a nominee with a largely unknown record is acceptable, and Miers has that. Should be smooth sailing, right? Wouldn't Democrats look hypocritical to oppose Miers on the basis of her lack of real Supreme Court-qualifying experience or adequate legal credentials, in light of Democrats recent willingness to confirm a nominee with similar drawbacks?

Yes, except for one big chink in her armor - and I stress BIG chink, especially in light of the President's weakened position and swirling storms over cronyism. It is true, Democrats would have a tough time making the we-don't-know-enough-about-her argument after their pathetic behavior in the Roberts' nomination. But, Miers has one defining characteristic that is both very troubling, and very politically potent: her major defining trait is her position as a Bush crony/ultra-loyalist.

And yet...

We're supposed to believe that, suddenly, Karl Rove had a stroke, Bush grew a conscience and that the Miers nomination is a liberal-directed stumble. ("Whoops! Did I accidentally nominate a liberal? Oh fuck!")

We're supposed to attribute this pro-gay-adoption memo to her personal views, even though there are 12 signatures on it. And we're supposed to extrapolate this alleged view to represent pro-civil rights views in general.

We're supposed to melt upon hearing of her article advocating legal representation for the poor.

I can't see straight, for all the spinning in the so-called "liberal" blogosphere. Maybe they're right. Maybe she's a raving liberal. Some folks say that Dems and progressives should support her, simply because the wingnuts are up in arms. But I wonder just how much of that right-wing protest is simply a reaction to the nomination of a 60-year-old, unmarried, childless, career woman. Obviously her non-wife, non-breeder status casts a shadow on her conservative credentials. Ahem....

Maybe I was right the first time, and the conservatives will block her, paving the way for someone like Janice Rogers Brown. And leaving the GOP all fired up and fundraising-ready for the coming election season ... while leaving the Dems holding their certitudes in their hands, wondering where all the women went.

Given the love fest given Harriet Miers by anti-choice Democrat senator Harry Ried, echoed by some prominent so-called liberal bloggers, it's quite interesting to learn that Miers once ran for office ... on a "pro-life" agenda. Reports the Dallas Morning News today:

As political activists rush to mine Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' slender public record, a former campaign manager says she opposed abortion rights while running for Dallas City Council in 1989.

"She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement," said Lorlee Bartos, who managed Ms. Miers' first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race.

This should reassure wingnuts and right-wingers in Democrats' clothing.

Ms. Bartos said Ms. Miers was supportive of abortion rights in her youth. She said Ms. Miers then underwent "a born-again, profound experience" that caused her to oppose abortion.

So what we have here is a lawyer with at least proto-dominionist views who's worked loyally for our born-again president being appointed in what may be his last chance to spike the Supreme Court with some Jeebus juice.

Ummm..... red flag?

What will happen now? Already we have so many (mostly) men who fell all over themselves yesterday trying to praise Ms. Miers. Will they come out swinging now? Will they at least own up to the possibility that they might have been wrong? Will Markos, who, like Bush, loves to proclaim how he's been consistent all along about everything, change his tune now, after he's already proclaimed victory?

Ask tough questions, definitely. Highlight the cronyism, corporatism that pervades everything Bush touches, sure. But knee-jerk opposition without regards to the facts on the ground is not healthy. Let's enjoy the Republicans eating their own for now. And if information arises that places her in the extremes of American jurisprudence, then we open up.

Otherwise, Miers is an even better candidate for the next Souter than Roberts. We won this round. This nomination is born of Bush's weakness, just as Clinton's nominations of Ginsburg and Breyer, at Hatch's urging, were born of his own weakness.

Perhaps the important lesson learned by progressives in these Supreme Court battles is not that Republicans Senators are really the radicals they are, but that allies you had assumed were watching your back are perhaps not so staunch or loyal or reliable as they'd have you believe.

Clearly there is a fundamental question about Miers' commitment to civil rights, human rights, equal protection under the law, and separation of church and state.

The question is whether Democrats and their would-be advisors consider this to be "important shit."